Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 45

Thread: Riding

  1. #16
    Registered User lkraus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Central Ohio
    Posts
    366
    Quote Originally Posted by 36654 View Post
    Honestly, this battle has been lost to the folks that demand the right to incur head trauma. No amount of logic can ever change their core belief that they have a divine / constitutional right to a pointless level of risk that others will pay for.
    Logic will not change their mind, but maybe their insurance company can by adjusting coverage and/or rates based on the level of protective gear actually worn.
    Larry
    2006 R1200RT

  2. #17
    Registered User 36654's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Central PA
    Posts
    1,692
    Quote Originally Posted by lkraus View Post
    Logic will not change their mind, but maybe their insurance company can by adjusting coverage and/or rates based on the level of protective gear actually worn.
    No employer or insurance company is going to "drill down" to that level of actuarial detail to determine rates for an individual. Besides, the expense of head trauma will be born by social security and medicaid, once the lifetime benefit is exceeded. Thus, it is ultimately is a welfare issue.
    Cave contents: 99 R11RS, 2013 Toyota Tacoma, 03 Simplicity Legacy, 97 Stihl FS75, Dewalt DW625 & DW744

  3. #18
    Registered User lkraus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Central Ohio
    Posts
    366
    Quote Originally Posted by 36654 View Post
    No employer or insurance company is going to "drill down" to that level of actuarial detail to determine rates for an individual. Besides, the expense of head trauma will be born by social security and medicaid, once the lifetime benefit is exceeded. Thus, it is ultimately is a welfare issue.
    The main issue with protection requirements seems to be the costs to others of preventable injuries. I'm speculating along the lines of basing paid out coverage on the actual circumstances of an accident. So if you scrape your ear off on the asphalt because your helmet was strapped to the seat, you get to pay your own medical bills. Or if you did not survive, the insurance pays $X to your estate versus $5X dollars to a helmeted riders estate. If the rider knows in advance he will not wear a helmet, let him pay a higher rate for full insurance. Maybe the broken leg would be covered, but not the skin grafts for the abrasions since you were wearing shorts when that car cut you off.

    The intent being to base the payout on the riders' willingness to accept responsibility for his own safety as reflected in his choice of protection, even if another party is at fault.

    Yeah, this sounds harsh, so it will never happen in our society. As a whole, we seldom expect individuals to live with the results of their own stupidity.
    Larry
    2006 R1200RT

  4. #19
    Registered User greenwald's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Sheboygan, WI
    Posts
    3,460

    Cool

    Quote Originally Posted by lkraus View Post
    The main issue with protection requirements seems to be the costs to others of preventable injuries. I'm speculating along the lines of basing paid out coverage on the actual circumstances of an accident. So if you scrape your ear off on the asphalt because your helmet was strapped to the seat, you get to pay your own medical bills. Or if you did not survive, the insurance pays $X to your estate versus $5X dollars to a helmeted riders estate. If the rider knows in advance he will not wear a helmet, let him pay a higher rate for full insurance. Maybe the broken leg would be covered, but not the skin grafts for the abrasions since you were wearing shorts when that car cut you off.

    The intent being to base the payout on the riders' willingness to accept responsibility for his own safety as reflected in his choice of protection, even if another party is at fault.

    Yeah, this sounds harsh, so it will never happen in our society. As a whole, we seldom expect individuals to live with the results of their own stupidity.
    Good points were made.

    Insurance companies already ask such questions as "Are you a smoker or use smokeless tobacco?" and underwriters adjust rates and conditions of benefits accordingly.

    All they need to do is simply add the question "If you operate a motorcycle, do you plan to wear a DOT-approved helmet?"

    If you answer yes, the insurance company doesn't need to start shadowing you on rides to verify compliance. It simply means if you're in a crash without a helmet, you forfeit certain coverages that you might have received for documented injuries.

    Say 'NO' to that question, and you either pay much higher rates or find yourself excluded from coverage for such an event alltogether.

    My premiums should not have to help build the fund insurance companies need to pay for the poor judgement of others.

    I have been denied certain levels of insurance in the past due to being a SCUBA diver, and had to secure coverage thru an alternate provider. It happens. Not a burden the rest of you should have to bear.
    Kevin Greenwald - Touring Tips Editor
    Nationally Certified Law Enforcement Motor Officer (Ret.) / IBA Member #34281
    MSF RiderCoach # 121656 (BRC,SBRC,IS,IME,SMARTrainer)
    Motorcycle/Driving Instructor - ROAD AMERICA Race Track

  5. #20
    Registered User Anyname's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Portsmouth, NH
    Posts
    732
    Mandatory helmet use? Think what that will do to the workers in the do-rag industry.

    I do always marvel at the cruiser types who wear heavy boots, leather chaps, leather jacket, heavy gloves (often w/o fingers) and a do rag. What is it about their noggin that means it has to go unprotected.

    I also see a lot of young riders on sport bikes wearing shorts, tanktop and flip flops, so I guess the cruiser guys are better off than that.
    BMW R bike rider, horizontally opposed to everything...

  6. #21
    Old man in the mountains osbornk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Marion VA-In the middle of some of the best riding in the country.
    Posts
    3,277
    Quote Originally Posted by Greenwald View Post
    Good points were made.

    Insurance companies already ask such questions as "Are you a smoker or use smokeless tobacco?" and underwriters adjust rates and conditions of benefits accordingly.

    All they need to do is simply add the question "If you operate a motorcycle, do you plan to wear a DOT-approved helmet?"

    If you answer yes, the insurance company doesn't need to start shadowing you on rides to verify compliance. It simply means if you're in a crash without a helmet, you forfeit certain coverages that you might have received for documented injuries.

    Say 'NO' to that question, and you either pay much higher rates or find yourself excluded from coverage for such an event alltogether.

    My premiums should not have to help build the fund insurance companies need to pay for the poor judgement of others.

    I have been denied certain levels of insurance in the past due to being a SCUBA diver, and had to secure coverage thru an alternate provider. It happens. Not a burden the rest of you should have to bear.
    I dont think the insurance departments and government officials would ever allow coverage to be denied because someone wasn't wearing a helmet as they promised. They won't allow coverage to be denied because the costs would be shifted to government (me and you through taxes) to care for them or their survivors the rest of their lives through social programs.
    'You can say what you want about the South, but I almost never hear of anyone wanting to retire to the North.

  7. #22
    Registered User greenwald's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Sheboygan, WI
    Posts
    3,460

    Cool

    Quote Originally Posted by osbornk View Post
    I dont think the insurance departments and government officials would ever allow coverage to be denied because someone wasn't wearing a helmet as they promised. They won't allow coverage to be denied because the costs would be shifted to government (me and you through taxes) to care for them or their survivors the rest of their lives through social programs.
    Sounds like a reasonable premise.

    Disappointing, but you're probably correct.
    Kevin Greenwald - Touring Tips Editor
    Nationally Certified Law Enforcement Motor Officer (Ret.) / IBA Member #34281
    MSF RiderCoach # 121656 (BRC,SBRC,IS,IME,SMARTrainer)
    Motorcycle/Driving Instructor - ROAD AMERICA Race Track

  8. #23
    Registered User 36654's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Central PA
    Posts
    1,692
    Quote Originally Posted by osbornk View Post
    I dont think the insurance departments and government officials would ever allow coverage to be denied because someone wasn't wearing a helmet as they promised. They won't allow coverage to be denied because the costs would be shifted to government (me and you through taxes) to care for them or their survivors the rest of their lives through social programs.
    Social security and medicaid already pay the bills once the lifetime benefit is exceeded. And, in the case of head trauma, that occurs fairly quickly.

    The real issue is .......no one in the US, and even less so in any other developed nation is going to be denied hospital care for simple stupidity. Even if that was the case and we had vegetative bikers laying on the sidewalk outside of the ER, there would still be lots of helmet-less bikers riding by and waving the thumbs-up to the veggies.

    It just who we are and we apparently like it........
    Cave contents: 99 R11RS, 2013 Toyota Tacoma, 03 Simplicity Legacy, 97 Stihl FS75, Dewalt DW625 & DW744

  9. #24
    Registered User 36654's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Central PA
    Posts
    1,692
    Quote Originally Posted by lkraus View Post
    The main issue with protection requirements seems to be the costs to others of preventable injuries. I'm speculating along the lines of basing paid out coverage on the actual circumstances of an accident. So if you scrape your ear off on the asphalt because your helmet was strapped to the seat, you get to pay your own medical bills. Or if you did not survive, the insurance pays $X to your estate versus $5X dollars to a helmeted riders estate. If the rider knows in advance he will not wear a helmet, let him pay a higher rate for full insurance. Maybe the broken leg would be covered, but not the skin grafts for the abrasions since you were wearing shorts when that car cut you off.

    The intent being to base the payout on the riders' willingness to accept responsibility for his own safety as reflected in his choice of protection, even if another party is at fault.

    Yeah, this sounds harsh, so it will never happen in our society. As a whole, we seldom expect individuals to live with the results of their own stupidity.
    Wait, in one case you're talking about life insurance and in the other health insurance.
    Cave contents: 99 R11RS, 2013 Toyota Tacoma, 03 Simplicity Legacy, 97 Stihl FS75, Dewalt DW625 & DW744

  10. #25
    Registered User greenwald's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Sheboygan, WI
    Posts
    3,460

    Cool

    Quote Originally Posted by 36654 View Post
    Social security and medicaid already pay the bills once the lifetime benefit is exceeded. And, in the case of head trauma, that occurs fairly quickly.

    The real issue is .......no one in the US, and even less so in any other developed nation is going to be denied hospital care for simple stupidity. Even if that was the case and we had vegetative bikers laying on the sidewalk outside of the ER, there would still be lots of helmet-less bikers riding by and waving the thumbs-up to the veggies.

    It just who we are and we apparently like it........
    Of course we'll never have bikers, clueless as to why their helmet-less heads are mangled, cast out onto the sidewalks outside of the ER entrance at medical centers.

    No different than we don't turn away smokers for their COPD, lung, throat and mouth cancers, etc., SCUBA diver-related injuries, snake-handler envenomation - whatever. I worked as an ER tech and ambulance attendant for 11 years at Memorial Medical Center (WI) - been there, seen it all.

    But let them pay a significantly higher premium for their 'lifestyle' - that's only fair to the rest of us who exercise greater caution. Sort of a "safe driver/safe rider" discount.

    That's 'Insurance Underwriting 101.'
    Last edited by Greenwald; 12-03-2012 at 03:30 PM.
    Kevin Greenwald - Touring Tips Editor
    Nationally Certified Law Enforcement Motor Officer (Ret.) / IBA Member #34281
    MSF RiderCoach # 121656 (BRC,SBRC,IS,IME,SMARTrainer)
    Motorcycle/Driving Instructor - ROAD AMERICA Race Track

  11. #26
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Eastern KY
    Posts
    3,222
    Quote Originally Posted by Anyname View Post
    Mandatory helmet use? Think what that will do to the workers in the do-rag industry.

    I do always marvel at the cruiser types who wear heavy boots, leather chaps, leather jacket, heavy gloves (often w/o fingers) and a do rag. What is it about their noggin that means it has to go unprotected.

    I also see a lot of young riders on sport bikes wearing shorts, tanktop and flip flops, so I guess the cruiser guys are better off than that.
    Meanwhile, many don't even wear eye protection where I live(must have by law in KY) & I seriously doubt anybody is being stopped. Truth is, from my limited experience I almost never see a bike stopped for whatever reason. We gotta a local that has got one of those yarn knit "skeleton faces" that he has been sporting around in lately on his HD & seems incongruous to me, what with the fingerless gloves? In the summer he wears "Lee Marvins", so it's apparent they don't stay on with the yarn thing in place.

    As to Hi-viz, my solution was to go for the hi-viz safety mesh over vest. It's not only arguably brighter than a whole jacket , it also fits over anything you've got on, such as summer mesh,rain wear, whatever-PLUS, you spend like $15 or so rather than a pricey whole jacket or 2! Also, if it fades you can replace on the cheap.
    I have noticed few snickers from people in parking lots when I put on all that garb. My hope is to outlive some of them.
    Of course, another reason to do the "right thing" is the season, cause ole St. Nick is watching you...

  12. #27
    Registered User 36654's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Central PA
    Posts
    1,692
    Quote Originally Posted by Greenwald View Post
    But let them pay a significantly higher premium for their 'lifestyle' - that's only fair to the rest of us who exercise greater caution. Sort of a "safe driver/safe rider" discount.

    That's 'Insurance Underwriting 101.'
    Find an insurance company that will work hard enough to write health insurance policies that will reward safety awareness or conversely penalize recklessness. I'm not aware of any. A pre-existing medical condition or age might get you rejected for medical insurance on the single policy market, but not much else.
    Cave contents: 99 R11RS, 2013 Toyota Tacoma, 03 Simplicity Legacy, 97 Stihl FS75, Dewalt DW625 & DW744

  13. #28
    Registered User mike m's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    SOCAL
    Posts
    106
    Say what you will about mandatory helmet laws, I'm guessing many injuries are caused by slapping your head on the pavement----and in many of those cases it can be a minor get-off, which leads to severe head trauma. You can recover from broken limbs and rash but if you crack the coconut-----I just don't know why you would chance that when a helmet can prevent it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Greenwald View Post
    No kidding.

    Even the mere whisper of mandatory helmet use around here can exile you to the Witness Protection Program.
    Mike M
    2014 GSA
    MOA# 86571

  14. #29
    Kbiker BCKRider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    B.C. Canada
    Posts
    756
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike M View Post
    Say what you will about mandatory helmet laws, I'm guessing many injuries are caused by slapping your head on the pavement----and in many of those cases it can be a minor get-off, which leads to severe head trauma. You can recover from broken limbs and rash but if you crack the coconut-----I just don't know why you would chance that when a helmet can prevent it.
    Three reasons I can think of:

    1. Man, those big helmets are NOT cool. (Meaning, my friends don't wear them. They also cost much more than beannies. That money could better be spent on chrome polish and after-market exhausts.)

    2. I am an expert rider and will never crash. (Actually, I've read that over 50% of those riders who confine themselves to paved roads DON'T EVER CRASH. Can't say if this is true. Not true for me or most experienced riding friends I've talked to. But that is a very small percentage of people who ride motorcycles. Perhaps those helmet-less riders really are more careful, especially after drinking.)

    3. Bugs, rain, and the occasional stone in the face are an important part of the riding experience. Avoid those and you might as well be in a cage.

    Hope this clears it up.
    Doug
    1992 K100RS

  15. #30
    2011 R1200RT ka5ysy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Prairieville, Louisiana
    Posts
    787
    Quote Originally Posted by Greenwald View Post
    No kidding.

    Even the mere whisper of mandatory helmet use around here can exile you to the Witness Protection Program.

    Kevin, you think that is bad ? try teaching a Harley Riders Edge class about ATGATT, Hi-Vis, Helmet use (not skid lids!), and then show up riding a BMW RT at the range

    What is even more fun is when BOTH instructors show up at the range on BMW's. It makes for interesting discussions !
    Doug, 2011 R1200RT Polar Metallic
    MSF #127350 NAUI #36288

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •